Samenvatting
Summary book Legal Psychology
- Instelling
- Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam (EUR)
- Boek
- Legal psychology
In this summary every chapter (1-7) of the book Legal Psychology (Eric Rassin, 2020) is summarized. ISBN: 6938
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 39 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 39 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
2 beoordelingen
Door: eliseboon • 4 jaar geleden
De samenvatting bestaat vooral uit een opsomming en onderzoeken die belangrijk zijn voor de onderbouwing van de literatuur worden niet goed genoeg uitgelegd.
Door: stillastudent • 4 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Summary Book Legal Psychology (Rassin, 2020)1. The legal context
In a Dutch criminal trial 4 typical questions need to be answered by the judge:
1. Can it be established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the suspect committed the
crime of which the public prosecutor suspects him? (Legal Psych)
2. Does the behavior displayed by the suspect qualify as a criminal act?
3. Are there any exception clauses precluding the suspect’s guilt? (For. Psych)
4. Which sanction is called for? (For. Psych)
When a threshold of evidence is reached perpetratorship is proven.
(There is no difference in Dutch between evidence and proof). ‘’Concluding beyond
reasonable doubt’’.
How to establish perpetratorship
Police often initially seek to identify a suspect and then gather evidence against this
suspect. It’s not unusual to construe information both as preliminary information as
well as incriminating evidence later on.
Police gathers enough incriminating evidence – Public prosecutor determines the
bigger part of the content of the casefile – Casefile is sent to the judges – Discussion
of all evidence (incriminating and exonerating) – Conviction (with at list 2 pieces of
evidence)
When determining perpetratorship the judge is free to display cherry picking. This
type of fact finding falls short when compared to scientific fact finding.
Legal rules are not written with scientific scrutiny in mind, but governed by the idea
that the suspect needs protection against the government. The rules do not
safeguard the validity of the conviction.
Experts in inquisitorial versus adversarial systems
Quality standards are defined by the Dutch List of Legal Experts (NRGD).
In an inquisitorial system, experts appointed by the judge work for and are paid by
the court.
An allegiance effect (=knowledge of the source influence the expert in a for the
commissioning party favorable manner) is very well possible in an adversarial system
(in this system both defense and prosecution can bring their own experts without
permission of the judge?).
While an adversarial system may invite skewed expert witness reports readily, an
inquisitorial system cannot completely prevent their occurrence.
Quality standards do not apply to all areas of expertise.
Criminal versus civil procedures
Criminal procedure is mainly inquisitorial, civil procedure is adversarial.
Goal of a civil suit is to determine which of the two parties is most right.
Equality of arms is the guiding principle in civil procedure.
Legal facts in a civil verdict can be remote from the factual truth.
Quality standards in civil law: Code of conduct (impartially, independently, integrity).
Reason to argue that civil cases may benefit from psychological insights.
2. Psychological science
, Psychology
1. Psychodynamics (Freud), 3 consistent themes:
a. Five predetermined developmental stages to reach mental state
b. Human mental system can be subdivided in two ways
i. Id (guided by pleasure) ego (guided by reality principle), superego
(guided by morality)
ii. Conscious and unconscious
c. Defense mechanisms (trauma and
2. Behaviourism
o Developed at the same time as psychodynamics, but is can be seen
as an antithesis
o Overt measurable behaviour, inspired by the methodology of
science
o Explanations of behaviour by simple generally applicable rules and
as little assumptions as possible (Ockham’s razor), leans on the
views of Darwin implying common ground between different
species
o Everyone is born equal with similar developmental possibilities,
tabula rasa nurture!!
o Klassieke conditionering
o Operante conditionering: post hoc ergo procter hoc
o Punishment goals/reasons
Desert/Retribution: infliction of harm by the government,
to relieve feelings of vengeance on the part of the victim
Deterrence: unlearn to commit crimes (because it is
disadvantageous) specific and general prevention
Incapacitation: temporarily unable to commit crimes
(protection society)
Rehabilitation: perpetrator can shake off his bad
reputation and start new freshly. Fit for return, and
society ready to embrace.
Restorative justice: restores relation between victim and
perpetrator (even if the victim holds no grudge)
Moral balance: the crime has disturbed a general fictive
societal moral balance (even if there’s no-one victimized
directly)
o There is reason to argue that the failure of criminal punishment to
accomplish various goals is not due to flawed theory but to invalid
application
Law of effect requires the test subject to perceive a
causal relation between behaviour and consequence.
o Five circumstances that make such perception
likely: Covariation (=togetherness of cause and
effect), chronology, contiguity (=effect rapidly after
cause), similarity (=equality of cause and effect),
absence of alternative causes
, o Punishment should be proportional, otherwise it
may lead to feeling of injustice (in animals to
helplessness)
o Punishment is likelier to prevent future crimes if it
follows right after the crime and if the perpetrator
had alternative behavioural options.
o BIAS-BAS-theory (inhibition and activation system):
some people are more prone to see and seek
reward, whereas others are more concerned with
avoiding punishment
3. Cognitivism:
o Synthesis between psychodynamics and behaviourism: copied
scientific approach of behaviourists but wanted to study what goes
on in our mind.
o Seligman made cognitivists realize that there is more than overt
behaviour by finding that dogs that were exposed to inescapable
electrical shocks would reach a state of learned helplessness, while
humans don’t reach this state as readily.
o Cognitive psychology has produced interesting research for legal
psychology:
Study of perception (eyewitness testimony)
Memory processes (testimonies)
Decision making (heuristics and bias)
Language (impact on definitions of modern psychology)
4. Neuroscience/(bio)psychology
o Paradigm shifts to not always run smoothly
o Neuropsychological test: Stroop test. But modern neuroscientific
measurements go further (EEG, fMRI)
o The relation between psychology and neuroscience is still not
clear: is neuroscience a part of psychology or is it a new discipline?
o When analyzing the impact of the four psychological schools
behaviourism was the major psychology school for some time, but
has been caught up by cognitivism and in some respect by
neuroscience. The mean impact factor of neuroscience was
highest. (look at page 21)
Hallmarks of science
Science is not a synonym of truth, but a sound procedure to try to uncover the truth.
Karl Popper
o Deduction instead of induction
o Falsification instead of verification
o Theories and hypotheses that are not falsifiable do not count as scientific
theories. Falsifiability is a criterion of demarcation, but because many theses
that are not falsifiable are still true, truth and science are no synonym
o Popper gave 3 advices for scientists
, Confirmation doesn’t count as evidence unless
it’s a result of a (failed) attempt to falsify and it
concerns a wild risky prediction
A theory should be falsifiable and should include
many (risky) predictions that imply prohibitions
If a hypothesis is falsified, scientists should
accept this outcome, and refrain from conjuring
up reasons for the falsification other than that
the hypothesis is incorrect
Besides falsification there is more to conducting good research
o Double blind research
o Psychometric requirements for psychological tests (reliable and validated)
Self-reports are sometimes limited in their validity
Psychologists may employ indirect or projective tests in cases which self-reports
may not be valid (psychodynamic phenomena for example, because they occur
unconsciously
o Example indirect test: Rorschach ink blok test
Room for interrater variance and thus unreliable
Flawed test still being used because of:
o Forer-effect/P. T. Barnum effect = mistaken impression that a test is valid
because it produces spot-on outcomes (horoscope example)
o Alchemist’s fantasy = the conviction that an ill-validated test can still
produce valid outcomes if the psychologist has received enough training
o Ad antiquitem fallacy = the conviction that a test must be valid because it
has been used in practice for a long time
o Ad populum fallacy = the conviction that a test must be valid because it is
used by so many practitioners
Besides self-reports and indirect tests, expert observations may lack validity and
reliability if the experts don’t use structured instruments
o Example: Rosenhan and healthy volunteers in a psychiatric hospital
o Diagnostic approach leaning of test seems to outperform clinical
observations.
o Several biases that may hinder the validity of unstructured observation:
Consistency or stability bias = we tend to underestimate changes,
and are thus susceptible to the incorrect impression that observed
phenomena are fixed.
Actor-observer bias = We tend to employ different criteria for
judging behaviour compared to when we judge our own behaviour
(personality vs circumstances)
Bad reputations are easy to gain and difficult to lose
Halo-effect: cross-over effect, independent traits leak into other,
domains.
Psychological tests:
o Other than observation, a self-report or indirect test, the crux of a test is
that the test-subject has to display a certain performance
In Neuroscience psychological measures are the main variables (EEG, fMRI), but
there are downsides:
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper dpchardeman. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 67474 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen